Actually, I didn’t argue that they would drive the US into bankruptcy, only force a huge, unexpected paper loss. The estimates are based on previous repayment rates. The loan balances are bigger and the job prospects are weakening for many popular fields.
Meaningless.
Most of the for-profit trade schools are accredited; by ACICS or one of the other “alternative” bodies. I’d be willing to bet the school Phouka’s mom worked at was, in fact, accredited; just not by the regional bodies that do most “real” schools.
And yet, increasingly, they aren’t.
Exactly. Statistics lumping all “college graduates” in together – pre-law at the Ivy League, Engineering State U, Philosophy at East Butthump State – are as meaningful as statistics lumping leukemia patients in with colicky babies as “sick people.” This statistic is not meaningless, however:
out of 41.7 million working college graduates in 2010, 48 percent—more than 20 million people—held jobs that required less than a bachelor’s degree. Thirty-seven percent held jobs that required no more than a high-school diploma.
And all of this conversation is about college grads; keep in mind, the nationwide graduation rate is around 56%. Factor out elite privates and the state flagships, and it’s under 50%. Millions of kids – disproportionately poor and minority – wind up dropping out and STILL owing student loans for two or three economically useless semesters of school.
If you’re talking to a kid that isn’t sure college will be worth it or not, the chances are that for him, it won’t be.
Nope. You said the unpayed loans fall on the taxpayer. Except that the taxpayer is coming out ahead by billions. Sounds like a net win for the taxpayer, no?
I advocate people being smart about loans, but I also want people to make borrowing decisions based on the actual terms of the loan, not anecdotes and false information. And the actual terms of federal student loans make them a pretty good deal in most cases.
Yes, people default on them. A large part of this is that relatively few people take advantage of income-based repayment plans, even though all it takes is a simple form to start them. It’s a shame, because it really is a manageable way to deal with your loans, and there really shouldn’t be anyone defaulting. But I think the answer to that is better loan counseling, not telling people to give up on education.
Clearly, the devil is in the details with a lot of courses of study. for myself, for example, I got a BA in Psychology.
If that’s your terminal degree, it’s not a great career path. When you go on to get your MS, though, in Psych or social work, now you can get licensed and make a good return on investment.
This attitude is a bit elitist IMHO. Yes, not everyone is cut out for college. And not every major or college is equal. I would question the value of even going to a nth tier school like Rivier College in razncain’s link. But creating a situation where college is only for rich kids and poor kids should stick to working with their hands in the trades sets us up to create a rigid class society.
Those are all the borrowers whose repayment periods began during the Great Recession. Of course the default rate would be higher. As the economy improves it will come down again.
That is not to say that it will ever reach its previous peak, especially since the fed stop subsidizing graduate students’ loans in 2011… fuckers.
Am I the only one who is starting to see this thread as an argument similar to “everyone should wear a large size t=shirt, large size t-shirts fit most people”?
No, I read it as something like “I wear a large T-shirt so everyone should wear large T-shirts whether they fit or not.”
It’s more like “Wearing tee shirts is associated with higher salaries and lower unemployment. While there are some people cannot wear tee shirts or prefer some other plan, as a general rule tee shirts are a good idea and should be encouraged.”
As a person who thinks too many people go to college, I see the general tone of the thread as much closer to even sven’s analogy.
Could be. I think too many people go to college also. But the best argument for college is the “good ol’ grad” system where jobs pay more and are reserved for college grads even if they are useless unproductive people.
Since I’m awful at making a point succinctly I wanted to give this post props for stating my opinion exactly but in a few sentences versus the multiple paragraphs it took me.
In his book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell actually found that how a child was socialized and provided access to various resources was more of an indicator of future success (i.e. earnings). A genius who did not have access to books or computers or similar educational resources or a positive support network is not likely to turn into the next Bill Gates.
So my question is how does one weed out those people who will leave college after a few semesters or graduate into a job that didn’t require a college degree?
Financial obligation aside, does a less than optimal outcome after attending college invalidate the value of going?
Also, how many of those 20 million working college grads in less than college-y jobs will eventually move into more college-grad appropriate jobs?
No one here wants to see you with your shirt off.
And this is relative to the discussion or appropriate for the great debates thread how?
I’m a little new here, please explain.
You brought up the shirts, and it’s inappropriate to remove your shirt during these debates. I can’t explain why, I often post while naked, I just don’t tell everybody about it.
Hey, I went to college for nine years to be this useless and unproductive! :mad:
I don’t agree with this analogy. The reason is that most people can find a shirt for them, it is just a matter of size. When you speak of sizes of shirts, having the wrong size can have negative effects. College is one size of shirt. To me, your analogy to be appropriate would have to be something like “some sort of career training is good,” which is much more all-encompassing.
Size(as a specific kind of t-shirt)=College(a specific kind of career training)
T-Shirt(all sizes including large)=Career training(all career training including college)
See, it works.
Isn’t this really the primary motivation for going to college? Not necessarily to be useless and productive, but because the system works against you even if you are a useful and productive person. Some of us beat the system, but in my case being in the right place at the right time was a big part of it. The alternative is not a lack of education, it’s a system based on education specific to needs, available in other forms, and not requiring extraordinary means to afford.
Well thanks. It’s sometimes easy to address the OPs as they are literally stated, but the secondary arguments can be more nuanced. You write well, and succinct enough to be understood anyway, I’m just naturally more terse when I’m not all het up.
People have said I “give good blunt”. That doesn’t seem to be appreciated much.
IMHO, the problem is that employers are lazy. College is now a shorthand for “can read, write and do basic arithmetic.” There is almost nothing in the average baccalaureate program that is useful in the working world, but employers don’t want to find out on their own if you can read, write or do sums.